Talk:Fantastic Four (2015 film)

Where do we mention the controversies?

I realize that we can't fill the article with every fanboy rage somebody reports on a blog or whatever, but some of the controversies surrounding this movie, particularly regarding Jordan's casting and Mara's comments about the comics, have received enough media attention to merit some sort of mention (the latter was covered by Indiewire and Entertainment Weekly, while the complaints about Jordan were covered by /Film, The Wrap, and even a Cracked.com humor article). So my question is, how do we incorporate this info into the article? Should it have its own Controversy section, or should it just be incorporated into one of the existing sections (Cast, Development, etc.)?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2014 (U

I think it should have it's section in this article names "Controversies". --Wikieditor14 (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Any major controversies with enough reliable coverage should probably go in the (as yet uncreated) Reception section in a subsection. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I just learned about the reboot and the casting on imdb ,came here to read about any controversies (especially Jordan's casting) and followed the links provided above. The impressions I received from reading the articles--and others searched for--were that (a) only 'geek fanboys' and racists have any objections to changing the race of one of the Storm siblings; (b) just because they've always been blond and white in the comic-books didn't mean casting directors were obliged to conform; (c) any so-called problems with a 'white' Sue Storm and a 'black' Johnny Storm can easily be explained (away) by a mixed-race marriage, adoption or some similar premise. In short, there really are no 'controversies' except for those whose minds are too narrow.

JWMcCalvin (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is "no controversy except for those whose minds are too narrow", actually I think that's a quite ignorant comment since you're openly looking down at people - you are therefore the biggest racist. Anyway, if you look at Pan (2015 film) there is a section dedicated to the controversy regarding the casting of Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily who is traditionally depicted as a Native American. She's still a fictional character though, just like Johnny Storm. There's no difference, you are just being ignorant. It's no secret that the pop magazines who report on these news such as Cracked and TheWrap are leftist/hipster - so of course they will call the controversy regarding Tiger Lily as a controversy, while they will call the controversy regarding Johnny Storm as simple racism. Still, they're both controversies and I think this should be included in this article. Wikipedia is supposed to be NEUTRAL so we shouldn't look at races differently. The casting controversy regarding Tiger Lily shouldnt be treated differently than the casting controversy regarding Johnny Storm. --Jonipoon (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Controversy may be too strong a word but at some point the article will need to address the fact a caucasian actress and a black actor have been cast as brother and sister. Aside from the fact Jordan becomes the first non-caucasian to play Johnny Storm, which is significant in itself, the story going to need to address this. If one was adopted, they're step-siblings, or were born to biracial parents which has been known to result in this, any three options are significant changes from the original source material (as is the fourth option that would see one of the characters given a last name other than Storm). If it has already been explained in media reports, then we can use this; otherwise it's a topic that might need to be addressed once the film comes out and its plot and script are known. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic chat

It's not narrow minds it's purists getting upset over Hollyweird yet again switching things up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.80.104.205 (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Right, and make Black Panther, Cyborg, or Vixen white, and you'll see how everyone suddenly flips at the 'racism'.92.114.148.141 (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC) This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fantastic Four (2015 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eonline.com/news/767635/teen-choice-awards-2016-nominations-announced-see-the-first-wave-of-potential-winners
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050401183827/http://www.fantasticfourmovie.com to http://www.fantasticfourmovie.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

"Fant4stic"? Proposal to change title...

I propose that we change this title to "Fantastic Four" or "Fantastic 4" throughout the film, because I geniunely do not believe that the creators of the film was aiming for it to be called by this name. A stylized title do not always mean that is how it is supposed to be read or said. Can anyone bring up a video or sound bite of the producers or director calling the movie by this exact title? Because if not, we ought to change it. --Luka1184 (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Poor use of pronouns

"Trank admitted that he found himself unable to identify with Slater's more comic book-centric tone. Furthermore, he would purposefully decrease any creative choice he had with it by preventing him from meetings without his permission and limit the amount of notes he got from the studio." BigFDawg (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

This excerpt is from the Production section BigFDawg (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

"Fantastic Four 3" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Fantastic Four 3 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 26#Fantastic Four 3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Summary of reviews in the lead

Hello. Right now the summary of the reception in the lead section reads, "The film was panned by critics for its tone, script, editing, acting, production design, and unfaithfulness to the source material." However, the reviews should speak for themselves and the cited terminology according to Metacritic is "unfavorable reviews". Given that I don't want to get involved in an edit war since I reverted three times, I'm taking the WP:BRD route and opening a discussion on what's the best way to summarize the reviews in the lead. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

One more time since you seem to have an odd fixation about this.

We sum up reviews all the time in the opening page of the film. Look at most other movie pages on Wikipedia. Why is this movie suddenly an exception?

I am not pulling those critiques from thin air. These are all repeated criticisms from the reviews that are linked.

Typically, there are five phrases used on wiki to sum up the critics reaction to a movie. Critical acclaim, positive, generally positive, mixed, negative, and on the occasion if the film is widely lambasted, than "pan."

It has been this way for years. Lotsofsalt (talk) 07:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, we've repeatedly had discussions about the use of the word "panned" in the reception and lead sections of film articles over on WT:FILM and WT:MOSFILM for quite a few years. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I must have missed that discussion. Seriously then, what term you prefer instead of panned? Overwhelmingly Negative?

In the case of Fan4stic, it was lambasted by critics. It is literally the lowest rated marvel movie on Rotten Tomatoes. Lotsofsalt (talk) 08:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

We can't use "panned" because the only source currently used in the article body to support a general summary of the critical response is Metacritic, which uses "unfavorable". Also, there's a relevant guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Lead section. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're on about here. The critical reception section of the film uses both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic as a source.

Lets take a look at this "worst superhero movies of all time" list from RT that ranks them by their RT approval rating.

https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/worst-superhero-movies/

It ranks number 6, right below Catwoman, which is also listed as panned on it's wiki page. Lotsofsalt (talk) 08:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Is the issue the use of the word "panned"? I think the issue is, LotsofSalt, that the terminology of "panned" is not very neutral and because it isn't used in the article it's not appropriate to use it in the lead, same as calling something a box office bomb without sourcing. Jones is pointing you towards Metacritic because it uses a sourceable term of "unfavorable reviews". Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 09:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

"Panned" is not very encyclopedic and there is better phrasing available to us, but the problems go beyond that. Lotsofsalt reels off a whole load of critical judgments with this edit that are unsourced and not detailed in the critical reception section. The edit clearly violates MOS:FILMCRITICS. Betty Logan (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Lotsofsalt, one of the most important points that you're missing is that we, as Wikipedian editors, cannot create our own summaries about critical reception out of thin air. Such summaries must be created by reliable sources, which we can then simply paraphrase as needed. This is the fundamental point of WP:FILMLEAD which states, "Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis, meaning it should reflect an overall consensus explicitly summarized by one or more reliable sources."

You may be seeing this done at some articles with less traffic, or at ones where the statement hasn't been properly challenged, but that doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't be done. Typically we say how the film was received using standard language that includes "positive" and "well received" or "negative", "unfavorable", and "not well received", something along those lines as long as film aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic agree with one another. In cases where they don't, the summary statement in the lead section should probably be avoided altogether.

At this article, you can take elements or verbiage from Rotten Tomatoes summary if you prefer, or just keep it simple by saying it wasn't well received by critics, but claims like "although there was some praise for the musical score" should not be made. There are no summary sources in the article that support that claim that I can see. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

November 2024, another editor changing the review summary to panned without any explanation. Reverted. -- 109.78.196.173 (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)